Post navigation

Bush disexplains Medicare Drug Benefit

[The man can’t think his way out of a paper bag. My cat would make a better President!!!
Bob Fertik’s contention that Bush is a literal puppet, echoing whatever comes down over his wireless prompter, is looking better and better…
Courtesy George Margolin on Dave Farber’s Interesting People mailing list.
-Thomas]
BUSH EXPLAINS MEDICARE DRUG BILL – – Verbatim Quote submitted on 2005
WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: “I don’t really understand. How is it the new
plan going to fix the problem?”
Verbatim Response (Bush)
“Because the – – all which is on the table begins to address the big
cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example,
is on the table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage
increases or price increases. There’s a series of parts of the
formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those
different cost drivers, affecting those – – changing those with
personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more
likely to be – – or closer delivered to that has been promised. Does
that make any sense to you? It’s kind of muddled. Look, there’s a
series of things that cause the – – like, for example, benefits are
calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the
increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate – – the
benefits will rise based upon inflation, supposed to wage increased.
There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into
effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the
promised benefits grow, if those – – if that growth is affected, it
will help on the red.”

[Actually, re-reading his statement… this is CEOspeak. They have no clue how most of the stuff that comes in front of them actually works, all they know is the big picture, the most basic and fundamental aspect of what a proposal is supposed to accomplish and how that will occur: “reduce cost drivers” by “changing the way benefits are calculated”. Bush is just too stupid to say anything that simple (setting aside the question of how true such a contention is). -Thomas]